Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
Super. Ct. No. CM026997
BUTZ, J.Defendant Gilbert Clyde Metz, Jr., pleaded guilty to one count of child molestation. (Pen. Code, § 288, subd. (a)(1).) The trial court sentenced him to six years in state prison, and imposed various fines and fees.
At issue on appeal is the court’s imposition at sentencing of certain unauthorized state fines totaling $160, comprised of the following: (1) a $40 court surcharge imposed pursuant to Penal Code section 1465.7, subdivision (a); (2) a $100 state court facilities construction fund penalty assessment imposed pursuant to Government Code section 70372, subdivision (a); and (3) a $20 DNA identification fund penalty assessment imposed pursuant to Government Code section 76104.6.
Defendant contends, and the People concede, that the court’s imposition of these fines violated the prohibition against ex post facto application of laws, because none of these statutes was in existence at the time of his offense.
They are correct. Defendant was charged with molesting the 11-year-old victim on or about September 7, 2002. Penal Code section 1465.7, subdivision (a) became operative on September 30, 2002 (Stats. 2002, ch. 1124, § 46); Government Code section 70372 became effective on January 1, 2003 (Stats. 2002, ch. 1082, § 4); and Government Code section 76104.6 became effective on November 3, 2004 (added by Prop. 69, a measure approved by the voters on Nov. 2, 2004); see People v. Batman (2008) 159 Cal.App.4th 587, 590. As we have previously held, it violates the prohibition against ex post facto laws to impose fines under Penal Code section 1465.7 and Government Code sections 70372 and 76104.6 on offenses committed prior to their enactment. (Batman, supra, 159 Cal.App.4th at p. 590; People v. High (2004) 119 Cal.App.4th 1192, 1197-1199.) These penalties must be stricken.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is modified by striking the fines imposed under Penal Code section 1465.7, subdivision (a) ($40) and Government Code sections 70372, subdivision (a) ($100) and 76104.6 ($20). As modified, the judgment is affirmed. The trial court is directed to correct the amended abstract of judgment accordingly and to send a certified copy of the second amended abstract to the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation.
We concur: SCOTLAND , P. J. HULL , J.